DJC49 wrote:
[a] But you WERE able to check in Sat. evening & Sun. under the alias *Greek Man*!
[b] No imagination; rather insightful observation. You, *CU*, posted as *Greek Man* over the weekend and I can PROVE it! Prove it based on empirical evidence, not conjecture. If you had to go to court over this, *CU*, you'd LOSE this case by a preponderance of the EVIDENCE. Anyone want proof? Just e-mail me. And THEN you'll see who really has the "imagination" here! (That's putting it kindly.)
[c] Your "rules of logic" are all silly and absurd. Conscience bother you much, "Greek Man*? Deny it.

I know something of the law, and I can guarantee that you would lose!

John UK wrote:
Well Joe, I really thought 'the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit'. Perhaps that doesn't apply to women, eh?
Now let me ask you another question, and bear in mind that I have been in Reformed circles for thirty odd years.
What is the Reformed Position on the difference between regeneration and the baptism with the Holy Ghost?
If you can answer this question satisfactorily, we might make some progress. Yes?

Acts 10.43 "..To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name **whosoever believeth** in him shall receive remission of sins..."

What these men want is salvation without belief because if belief was critical then in their minds it involves works

Passages like this also contradict another part of their pseudo calvinism. It is not the act of believing that is new. It is what is believed - "..**whosoever believeth in him** shall receive the remission of sins.."

John UK wrote:
Ok Joe, I disagree with you about Lydia. I see no boasting. But Cornelius, now you have me baffled. To have such a reputation in the community doesn't happen overnight. We talk years here. Was he born again YEARS before he was saved?????
Welcome back CU, I trust you had a good and profitable weekend?

Yes thanks, but had to be away another night unexpectedly so was not able to check in yesterday.

I see that DJC49 has been off again on one of his fanciful flights of imagination! But then I guess one would have to have a pretty good imagination to see half the things that these pseudo calvs see in their Bible

DJC49 wrote:
Who in the world ever gave THIS sort of command???
Who in the world ever told anyone NOT to pray until they
bear evidence of regeneration???
...Sometimes, John UK, you pull stuff out of your hat that is utterly ... stupefying!

Joe T's response 2/24/09 9.55AM when he writes:

"Did God hearken to the prayers of an unregenrate man dead in trespasses and sins and have respect unto his alms outside of Christ?"

So typical calv reasoning would go, "Why should we encourage children to pray when they are unregenerate?" etc.

John, Mike NY, Michael H

Very Strange wrote:
Mister Understanding
There you are you see! You rejected all the Calvinist teaching.
Now why don't you lie down tonight and see if you can cure yourself of this fixation you have with being a Calvinist.
Repeat to yourself the words "The truth is I am an Arminian"
Then your free will can take over and return you to what you really are.

You can go to the Institutes now and try and find some ammunition.
I shall go back to my Bible

Tired of Calvin

John UK

How are you bro? How's the painting coming along? Are you managing to make a living from it yet?

I will give some thought to the rich young ruler and will post up my thoughts, for what they are worth, sometime.

Mike

Thanks for your answer.

I had posted some more which I don't think you have read. I will post up the last part when I have more time.

Very Strange wrote:
...Now you do understand what the word "RENEW" means dont you?

Very Strange wrote:
BTW Calvinist/Reformed teaching is that FAITH is a work of the Holy Spirit, NOT an application of the sinners existing human faculties.

Why don't you lay Calvin's works to one side and prove your proposition from the scriptures.

Very Strange wrote:
..*CALVINIST* teaching on FAITH is::
"The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls...Blah Blah Blah

Very Strange wrote:
Mister Understanding.....
Dont forget to tell Mike about your previous teaching that the only faculty of the sinner which is NOT RENEWED is faith.
After all faith is not really very important is it?

You are either illiterate or just a plain liar!

Care to point to any posting of mine where I stated that faith was not renewed?

What do you suppose I meant when I wrote:

Mike wrote:
CU, we have no disagreement there. Man cannot save hinself. The Holy Spirit enables, man responds. Where I have a problem is when it is said this enablement makes salvation inevitable. If the will has been freed to respond positively, is it no longer free to respond negatively?..

Theoretically, Yes. But the will is not renewed in isolation from the other faculties.

The mind is enlightened by God's Spirit through His Word to see God's holiness, love, perfections etc. One can now see one's own sinfulness, hard heartedness etc.,

The emotions are set free to feel the arrows of conviction and to really appreciate spiritual truths - their weight, proportion, beauty etc

IOW the man is put into a RIGHT MIND and given a disposition to believe and love the things of God.

This is the position that the prodigal came to when we read "he came to himself". He came to a right mind.

Who in their right mind, having once tasted the bitterness of sin and its slavery, would choose to reject the path to joy and freedom? Even if it means personal humiliation!

Surely, such a work of grace must be effectual?

This effectual call is, I believe, distingusihed from a general call in the bible.

I mis-read your post, as you were quoting Mike's words, not mine. My apologies to you DJC49!

As John UK would say, CU, have one of these

DJC49 wrote:
To the above ...
I liked very much what you had to say in response to Mike's question: "If the will has been freed to respond positively, is it no longer free to respond negatively?"
It's too bad you decided to take it down.

The exact wording of my previous post, which I decided to delete, is saved on my computer.

DJC49 wrote:
To the above ...
I liked very much what you had to say in response to Mike. It's too bad you decided to take it down.

Mike wrote:
CU, we have no disagreement there. Man cannot save hinself. The Holy Spirit enables, man responds. Where I have a problem is when it is said this enablement makes salvation inevitable. If the will has been freed to respond positively, is it no longer free to respond negatively?

Mike wrote:
This is where accountability come into play. We are responsible for the light we have been given.
Got to go for a few hours.

Mike wrote:
They have problems with the idea that God could possibly have made man with an actual free will. George suggests that the rich man was a freewiller because he chose to walk away. Freely chose to do so. Kind of odd when you think about it. For if he had not walked away, it would be said that it was because he was enabled to freely choose to sell his stuff and follow Christ. Freely choosing, either way.

You acknowledge that without the work of the Holy Spirit man "will not" come to God when the gospel is presented.

So in what sense does he have a "free will" prior to the Spirit's work? If you mean by this that his will is not determined by any factor outside of himself then we have no disagreement. 5 pointers refer to this as "free agency" rather than "free will". Different terms, same concept.

But, if you mean that he can, despite his sinful nature, and without any help from the Holy Spirit respond positively to the Gospel summons (his will is free to move for as well as against the gospel), then we do have a disagreement.

George G. wrote:
.....Was the young man "elect"?
No
He remained a free willer for the rest of his life.

Besides isn't election to salvation unconditional? What difference would his adherence to freewillism have made?

But even if you were able to prove the point that he was a freewiller, is it not telling that we read that Jesus loved him!

Mike wrote:
Can a man who has no moral ability be considered a moral being?

The description "moral inability" is perhaps not the most appropriate and it is therefore easy to misunderstand. But the underlying idea I believe is sound.

All that is meant is that man "will not" come, without the Holy Spirit changing the disposition of the will so that he is enabled to come willingly.

Man acts in accordance with his depraved nature and his darkened mind. He cannot help doing so. So when he is presented with the gospel he "will not" come to God. He will resist it. The Holy Spirit must therefore do something for man to enable him to come willingly.

I don't think that there would be much controversy up to this point between us.

rogerant wrote:
These discussions about saving faith, whether man has the ability to have faith, whether it is a gift from God, or he has the faculty within himself to have faith does not consider what the object of that faith is.
Man does have the ability to trust in things such as science, people, history and god. But man does not have the moral ability to place trust in the objective person and work of Christ. Man does have the capacity to trust in a god, and his own acts of piety and repentence, but that is not saving faith. The moral ability (and or will) of man to place trust in the person of Christ as his substitute, and upon the finished work on the cross, and trust in His promise to raise us from the grave is a gift from God....

John UK wrote:
I guess I must be a moderate six-lettered.
But who or what is Sam Hill?
CU, do you have some thoughts to share about the rich young man? He's done the rounds a week or two ago, but you might as well have your say.

I would definitely count you as a moderate.

Pagan

Nothing to hide. Just don't want to spill the beans and lose half the fun

Pagan Understanding wrote:
A moderate 5 pointer?

What in the Sam Hill is a moderate 5 pointer?
Please articulate

A moderate 5 pointer is basically one with all the hyper calv errors removed.

Mike wrote:
The former.

But in frankness I must tell you that I am a moderate 5 pointer. It is only because of my moderate views that I am being jumped on by the hypers on SA whose views I cannot agree with.

lyn wrote:
....I fear the Lord and would rather honor Him than be drug into endless, meaningless debates!!!